bims-skolko Biomed News
on Scholarly communication
Issue of 2022–12–25
thirteen papers selected by
Thomas Krichel, Open Library Society
  1. Minimal reporting improvement after peer review in reports of covid-19 prediction models: systematic review.
  2. Can peer reviewing preprints catch on?
  3. Best practices for exposure model peer review - A SciPinion advisory panel report.
  4. Peer reviewers' dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences.
  5. The Asymmetric Influence of Emotion in the Sharing of COVID-19 Science on Social Media: Observational Study.
  6. Close to open-Factors that hinder and promote open science in ecology research and education.
  7. Open access and its potential impact on public health - A South African perspective.
  8. Concerns About the Potential Risks of Artificial Intelligence in Manuscript Writing.
  9. Perceived Barriers to Publication in Scholarly Journals by Faculty from Maharajgunj Medical Campus.
  10. A guideline for the appropriate recognition of shared resource laboratories in publication.
  11. Recommendations for Writing Clinical Research Manuscripts: From Monofocal to Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.
  12. Analysis of repeated roles in editorial boards at oncology focused journals.
  13. Phase 1 of the NIH Preprint Pilot: Testing the viability of making preprints discoverable in PubMed Central and PubMed.
  1. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022 Dec 14. pii: S0895-4356(22)00323-7. [Epub ahead of print]
    Minimal reporting improvement after peer review in reports of covid-19 prediction models: systematic review.
    Mohammed T Hudda, Lucinda Archer, Maarten van Smeden, Karel G M Moons, Gary S Collins, Ewout W Steyerberg, Charlotte Wahlich, Johannes B Reitsma, Richard D Riley, Ben Van Calster, Laure Wynants.
       OBJECTIVE: To assess improvement in the completeness of reporting COVID-19 prediction models after the peer review process.
    STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Studies included in a living systematic review of COVID-19 prediction models, with both pre-print and peer-reviewed published versions available, were assessed. The primary outcome was the change in percentage adherence to the TRIPOD reporting guidelines between pre-print and published manuscripts.
    RESULTS: 19 studies were identified including seven (37%) model development studies, two external validations of existing models (11%), and 10 (53%) papers reporting on both development and external validation of the same model. Median percentage adherence amongst pre-print versions was 33% (min-max: 10 to 68%). The percentage adherence of TRIPOD components increased from pre-print to publication in 11/19 studies (58%), with adherence unchanged in the remaining eight studies. The median change in adherence was just 3 percentage points (pp, min-max: 0-14pp) across all studies. No association was observed between the change in percentage adherence and pre-print score, journal impact factor, or time between journal submission and acceptance.
    CONCLUSIONS: Pre-print reporting quality of COVID-19 prediction modelling studies is poor and did not improve much after peer review, suggesting peer review had a trivial effect on the completeness of reporting during the pandemic.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; Peer review; TRIPOD; adherence; prediction modelling; prognosis and diagnosis; reporting guidelines
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.12.005
  2. Science. 2022 Dec 23. 378(6626): 1264-1265
    Can peer reviewing preprints catch on?
    Jeffrey Brainard.
      As unreviewed studies proliferate online, researchers are eyeing ways to boost critiques.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adg3933
  3. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2022 Dec 14. pii: S0273-2300(22)00203-3. [Epub ahead of print] 105316
    Best practices for exposure model peer review - A SciPinion advisory panel report.
    Sean M Hays, Christopher R Kirman, Jeffrey H Driver, Ian van Wesenbeeck, Richard A Becker.
      The extent and rigor of peer review that a model undergoes during and after development influences the confidence of users and managers in model predictions. A process for determining the breadth and depth of peer review of exposure models was developed with input from a panel of exposure-modeling experts. This included consideration of the tiers and types of models (e.g., screening, deterministic, probabilistic, etc.). The experts recommended specific criteria be considered when evaluating the degree to which a model has been peer reviewed, including quality of documentation and the model peer-review process (e.g., internal review with a regulatory agency by subject matter experts, expert review reports, formal Scientific Advisory Panels, and journal peer review). In addition, because the determination of the confidence level for an exposure model's predictions is related to the degree of evaluation the model has undergone, irrespective of peer review, the experts recommended the approach include judging the degree of model rigor using a set of specific criteria: (1) nature and quality of input data, (2) model verification, (3) model corroboration, and (4) model evaluation. Other key areas considered by the experts included recommendations for addressing model uncertainty and sensitivity, defining the model domain of applicability, and flags for when a model is used outside its domain of applicability. The findings of this expert engagement will help developers as well as users of exposure models have greater confidence in their application and yield greater transparency in the evaluation and peer review of exposure models.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2022.105316
  4. Humanit Soc Sci Commun. 2022 Mar 04. pii: s41599-022-01050-6. [Epub ahead of print]9(1):
    Peer reviewers' dilemmas: a qualitative exploration of decisional conflict in the evaluation of grant applications in the medical humanities and social sciences.
    Gaёlle Vallée-Tourangeau, Ana Wheelock, Tushna Vandrevala, Priscilla Harries.
      Independent evaluations of grant applications by subject experts are an important part of the peer-review system. However, little is known about the real-time experiences of peer reviewers or experts who perform reviews of a grant application independently. This study sought to gain insight into this stage of the grant evaluation process by observing how experts conduct an independent review in near real time. Using the think aloud approach and Critical Decision Method of interviewing, in-depth interviews were conducted with 16 peer reviewers from a range of roles and disciplines within the medical humanities and social sciences. Participants were asked to think aloud while reviewing applications to different grant schemes from a single prestigious funder. The analysis shows reviewers encountered five dilemmas during the evaluation process. These dilemmas were related to whether or not one should (1) accept an invitation to review, (2) rely exclusively on the information presented in the application, (3) pay attention to institutional prestige, (4) offer comments about aspects that are not directly related to academics' area of expertise, and (5) to take risks and overlook shortcomings rather than err on the side of caution. In order to decide on the appropriate course of action, reviewers often engaged in a series of deliberations and trade-offs-varying in length and complexity. However, their interpretation of what was 'right' was influenced by their values, preferences and experiences, but also by relevant norms and their understanding of the funder's guidelines and priorities. As a result, the way reviewers approached the identified dilemmas was idiosyncratic and sometimes diametrically opposed to other reviewers' views, which could lead to variation in peer-review outcomes. The dilemmas we have uncovered suggest that peer reviewers engage in thoughtful considerations during the peer-review process. We should, therefore, be wary of reducing the absence of consensus as resulting from biased, instinctive thinking. Rather, these findings highlight the diversity of values, priorities and habits and ways of working each reviewer brings to the fore when reviewing the applicants and their project proposals and call for further reflection on, and study of, this "invisible work" to better understand and continue to improve the peer-reviewing process.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-022-01050-6
  5. JMIR Infodemiology. 2022 Jul-Dec;2(2):2(2): e37331
    The Asymmetric Influence of Emotion in the Sharing of COVID-19 Science on Social Media: Observational Study.
    Kai Luo, Yang Yang, Hock Hai Teo.
       Background: Unlike past pandemics, COVID-19 is different to the extent that there is an unprecedented surge in both peer-reviewed and preprint research publications, and important scientific conversations about it are rampant on online social networks, even among laypeople. Clearly, this new phenomenon of scientific discourse is not well understood in that we do not know the diffusion patterns of peer-reviewed publications vis-à-vis preprints and what makes them viral.
    Objective: This paper aimed to examine how the emotionality of messages about preprint and peer-reviewed publications shapes their diffusion through online social networks in order to inform health science communicators' and policy makers' decisions on how to promote reliable sharing of crucial pandemic science on social media.
    Methods: We collected a large sample of Twitter discussions of early (January to May 2020) COVID-19 medical research outputs, which were tracked by Altmetric, in both preprint servers and peer-reviewed journals, and conducted statistical analyses to examine emotional valence, specific emotions, and the role of scientists as content creators in influencing the retweet rate.
    Results: Our large-scale analyses (n=243,567) revealed that scientific publication tweets with positive emotions were transmitted faster than those with negative emotions, especially for messages about preprints. Our results also showed that scientists' participation in social media as content creators could accentuate the positive emotion effects on the sharing of peer-reviewed publications.
    Conclusions: Clear communication of critical science is crucial in the nascent stage of a pandemic. By revealing the emotional dynamics in the social media sharing of COVID-19 scientific outputs, our study offers scientists and policy makers an avenue to shape the discussion and diffusion of emerging scientific publications through manipulation of the emotionality of tweets. Scientists could use emotional language to promote the diffusion of more reliable peer-reviewed articles, while avoiding using too much positive emotional language in social media messages about preprints if they think that it is too early to widely communicate the preprint (not peer reviewed) data to the public.
    Keywords:  COVID-19; COVID-19 science; computational social science; emotion; online social networks; science communication; social media
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.2196/37331
  6. PLoS One. 2022 ;17(12): e0278339
    Close to open-Factors that hinder and promote open science in ecology research and education.
    Christian B Strømme, A Kelly Lane, Aud H Halbritter, Elizabeth Law, Chloe R Nater, Erlend B Nilsen, Grace D Boutouli, Dagmar D Egelkraut, Richard J Telford, Vigdis Vandvik, Sehoya H Cotner.
      The Open Science (OS) movement is rapidly gaining traction among policy-makers, research funders, scientific journals and individual scientists. Despite these tendencies, the pace of implementing OS throughout the scientific process and across the scientific community remains slow. Thus, a better understanding of the conditions that affect OS engagement, and in particular, of how practitioners learn, use, conduct and share research openly can guide those seeking to implement OS more broadly. We surveyed participants at an OS workshop hosted by the Living Norway Ecological Data Network in 2020 to learn how they perceived OS and its importance in their research, supervision and teaching. Further, we wanted to know what OS practices they had encountered in their education and what they saw as hindering or helping their engagement with OS. The survey contained scaled-response and open-ended questions, allowing for a mixed-methods approach. We obtained survey responses from 60 out of 128 workshop participants (47%). Responses indicated that usage and sharing of open data and code, as well as open access publication, were the most frequent OS practices. Only a minority of respondents reported having encountered OS in their formal education. A majority also viewed OS as less important in their teaching than in their research and supervisory roles. The respondents' suggestions for what would facilitate greater OS engagement in the future included knowledge, guidelines, and resources, but also social and structural support. These are aspects that could be strengthened by promoting explicit implementation of OS practices in higher education and by nurturing a more inclusive and equitable OS culture. We argue that incorporating OS in teaching and learning of science can yield substantial benefits to the research community, student learning, and ultimately, to the wider societal objectives of science and higher education.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0278339
  7. Front Res Metr Anal. 2022 ;7 975109
    Open access and its potential impact on public health - A South African perspective.
    Adéle Strydom, Juanita Mellet, Jeanne Van Rensburg, Ignatius Viljoen, Anastasios Athanasiadis, Michael S Pepper.
      Traditionally, access to research information has been restricted through journal subscriptions. This means that research entities and individuals who were unable to afford subscription costs did not have access to journal articles. There has however been a progressive shift toward electronic access to journal publications and subsequently growth in the number of journals available globally. In the context of electronic journals, both open access and restricted access options exist. While the latter option is comparable to traditional, subscription-based paper journals, open access journal publications follow an "open science" publishing model allowing scholarly communications and outputs to be publicly available online at no cost to the reader. However, for readers to enjoy open access, publication costs are shifted elsewhere, typically onto academic institutions and authors. SARS-CoV-2, and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the benefits of open science through accelerated research and unprecedented levels of collaboration and data sharing. South Africa is one of the leading open access countries on the African continent. This paper focuses on open access in the South African higher education research context with an emphasis on our Institution and our own experiences. It also addresses the financial implications of open access and provides possible solutions for reducing the cost of publication for researchers and their institutions. Privacy in open access and the role of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) in medical research and secondary use of data in South Africa will also be discussed.
    Keywords:  POPIA; open access; open science; privacy; publication costs; secondary use of data
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3389/frma.2022.975109
  8. J Urol. 2022 Dec 23. 101097JU0000000000003131
    Concerns About the Potential Risks of Artificial Intelligence in Manuscript Writing.
    Daniel A González-Padilla.
      
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003131
  9. J Nepal Health Res Counc. 2022 Nov 02. 20(2): 366-371
    Perceived Barriers to Publication in Scholarly Journals by Faculty from Maharajgunj Medical Campus.
    Samarika Dahal, Gentle Sunder Shrestha, Shreejana Singh, Deepak Raj Joshi, Ranju Situala, Pawan Raj Chalise, Mohan Raj Sharma.
       BACKGROUND: Due to multiple reasons, the faculty members in Nepal devote less than expected time to research and publication. This could be attributable to various challenges unique to each faculty member and their institution. The present study aims to evaluate the potential barriers to publication faced by the faculty of Maharajgunj Medical Campus, Kathmandu, Nepal.
    METHODS: This cross-sectional observational questionnaire-based study was conducted among the 139 faculty members representing various departments of MMC.  Results: The significant barriers were: difficult coordination (43.2%), the response time of the reviewer (48.2%), overburdened with work (39.6%), lack of funds for research (44.6%), limited submission skills (33.8%), poor writing skills (35.3%), difficulties in starting to write (42.4%), lack of time to submit a paper (43.9%), and family commitment (36.7%).  Conclusions: The findings of this study could be used to advocate for a prospective change in the work module to produce competent medical researchers generating high-quality publications.
    Keywords:  Academia; low-income countries; publication research.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.33314/jnhrc.v20i02.4238
  10. Cytometry A. 2022 Dec 21.
    A guideline for the appropriate recognition of shared resource laboratories in publication.
    Laura Ferrer-Font, Alfonso Schmidt, Franca Ronchese, Kylie M Price.
      The issue of what level of contribution warrants authorship, determining a fair order of authors and when and whom to acknowledge in publications is often a cause of debate, and in some instances, has also been a focus of conflict at certain institutions. Shared resource laboratories (SRLs) play a fundamental role in supporting publications, and SRL staff scientists can contribute to numerous areas such as experimental design, sample preparation, data acquisition, data analysis and manuscript drafting and review. However, SRL staff scientists are often unfairly omitted from the author list. To avoid SRLs and SRL staff scientist contributions going unnoticed, the authors have formulated a set of guidelines to aid in the conceptualization and recognition of the technical and intellectual contributions of SRLs. As a better understanding of the role SRL staff scientists play in the achievement of the scientific lead's experimental aims will foster a positive feedback loop, where acknowledgements can lead to more support and funding for SRLs and more engaged SRL staff capable of supporting discoveries and technological innovations that underpin major advancements in the field of life sciences.
    Keywords:  SRLs; acknowledgements; authorship; publications; recognition
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1002/cyto.a.24713
  11. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 19. pii: 17036. [Epub ahead of print]19(24):
    Recommendations for Writing Clinical Research Manuscripts: From Monofocal to Multifocal Intraocular Lenses.
    Joaquín Fernández, Carlos Rocha-De-Lossada, Manuel Rodríguez-Vallejo.
      Writing a manuscript is not an easy task, and publishing in peer-reviewed journals might prove difficult if the methodology is not appropriately described and results are not clearly presented [...].
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192417036
  12. J Cancer Policy. 2022 Dec 17. pii: S2213-5383(22)00059-5. [Epub ahead of print]35 100380
    Analysis of repeated roles in editorial boards at oncology focused journals.
    Lama Sawalha, Amar H Kelkar, Ghulam Rehman Mohyuddin, Aaron M Goodman, Nico Gagelmann, Samer Al Hadidi.
       AIM OF THE STUDY: Our objective was to investigate current landscape of editorial board members at oncology journals with a focus on characteristics of editorial board members who serve on editorial boards at multiple journals concurrently.
    METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study describing characteristics of editorial board members at oncology journals with an impact factor (IF) of ≥ 10 in the 2020 Journal Citation Reports.
    RESULTS: A total of 73 journals in the period of 2016-2020 were analyzed. A total of 5833 editorial roles were included in our final analysis of which 3979 (68%) roles were carried by men and 3572 (61%) were members located in the US. Repeated roles occurred in 1101 (19%; range: 2-6 roles) of total included editorial roles and were distributed in 488 distinct editorial members. Most editorial board members with repeated roles carried either 2 roles (80%) or 3 roles (17%); however, 18 (3%) editorial board members carried ≥ 4 roles at different journals. A total of 23% of editors-in-chief carried another editorial role at a different journal. Only 1% of all editorial roles were carried by individuals affiliated with universities located in low- or middle-income countries.
    CONCLUSION: One-fifth of the editorial board positions were held by members who served on more than one editorial board, including members serving as editors-in-chief. Editors with repeated roles may be at higher risk for influence from competing interests and diminished quality of work, may contribute to publication delays, and may limit editorial opportunities for other qualified scientists.
    POLICY STATEMENT: A considerable number of editorial team members had multiple roles across various cancer-focused journals, including members serving as editors in chief. Such repeated roles limit appropriate representation and hinders diversity in academia. Regulations to prevent repeated editorial roles are needed.
    Keywords:  Academia; Editor in chief; Editorial board; Editorial board members; Oncology
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2022.100380
  13. bioRxiv. 2022 Dec 13. pii: 2022.12.12.520156. [Epub ahead of print]
    Phase 1 of the NIH Preprint Pilot: Testing the viability of making preprints discoverable in PubMed Central and PubMed.
    Kathryn Funk, Teresa Zayas-Cabán, Jeffrey Beck.
       Introduction: The National Library of Medicine (NLM) launched a pilot in June 2020 to 1) explore the feasibility and utility of adding preprints to PubMed Central (PMC) and making them discoverable in PubMed and 2) to support accelerated discoverability of NIH-supported research without compromising user trust in NLM's widely used literature services.
    Methods: The first phase of the Pilot focused on archiving preprints reporting NIH-supported SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 research. To launch Phase 1, NLM identified eligible preprint servers and developed processes for identifying NIH-supported preprints within scope in these servers. Processes were also developed for the ingest and conversion of preprints in PMC and to send corresponding records to PubMed. User interfaces were modified for display of preprint records. NLM collected data on the preprints ingested and discovery of preprint records in PMC and PubMed and engaged users through focus groups and a survey to obtain direct feedback on the Pilot and perceptions of preprints.
    Results: Between June 2020 and June 2022, NLM added more than 3,300 preprint records to PMC and PubMed, which were viewed 4 million times and 3 million times, respectively. Nearly a quarter of preprints in the Pilot were not associated with a peer-reviewed published journal article. User feedback revealed that the inclusion of preprints did not have a notable impact on trust in PMC or PubMed.
    Discussion: NIH-supported preprints can be identified and added to PMC and PubMed without disrupting existing operations processes. Additionally, inclusion of preprints in PMC and PubMed accelerates discovery of NIH research without reducing trust in NLM literature services. Phase 1 of the Pilot provided a useful testbed for studying NIH investigator preprint posting practices, as well as knowledge gaps among user groups, during the COVID-19 public health emergency, an unusual time with heightened interest in immediate access to research results.
    DOI:  https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.12.12.520156
This page is being maintained by Thomas Krichel. It was last updated on 2024‒11‒22 at 4:28.